Appendix! Fyodor Dostoevsky and Vladimir Solovyov*

Appendix! Fyodor Dostoevsky and Vladimir Solovyov* (In memory of Dr Nicolas M. Zernov, 1898-1980) The volume and scope of critical and commentarial literature devoted to Dostoevsky's thought in the century since his death is clear evidence of the richness and complexity encountered in his works. In the figure of Vladimir Solovyov - both in his person and his writings - we also encounter a high degree of complexity. Tracing the patterns of his thought, we find certain tensions and a number of striking incongruities. Here was - a man who was, at heart, a monarchist, but aroused the anger and suspicions of the Tsar and Holy Synod through his advocacy of theocratic government; a man who embraced so much that was characteristic of the Slavophiles, and yet was a staunch supporter of their arch-enemy, Peter the Great; a man so seemingly keen to reaffirm the worth of contemplative spirituality, but who personally resisted the decision to join a monastery, a step that he at one time regarded as 'flight' from the world. Those who knew Solovyov at first hand stressed what they regarded either as his sanctity or his eccentricity (his chudachestvo ). Accounts of the excitement generated by his university lectures on philosophy certainly show that he commanded a surprising degree of authority and respect. On the other hand, Solovyov had to contend with numerous uncharitable gibes and with accusations to the effect that he had set himself up as a 'prophet'. Perhaps his best response to adverse criticism of this kind was to deflate his *A Paper delivered at the VI Symposium of the International Dostoevsky Society, 9-16 August 1986, University of Nottingham. For Solovyov's and Dostoevsky's friendship and relations, see Chapter 2. 185 186 Appendix I opponents' words by means of self-parody- a device to which he frequently resorted. Problems of assessment are actually aggravated by the fact that, on occasion, one and the same feature of Solovyov's personality evoked entirely opposite responses in those who knew him. His very distinctive laughter was noted in the memoirs of numerous contemporaries: some accounts mention it as evidence of the philosopher's childlike simplicity and of his appreciative, accepting response to life. Vasiliy Rozanov, on the other hand, described Solovyov's laughter as 'manic' and even 'demonic', a 'hysterical' laughter that betrayed a man on the edge of despair. Reviewing the third volume of Solovyov's published correspondence, Rozanov took the loneliness and isolation expressed in those letters as likely contributing factors to an overall sense of failure and consequent despair. Rozanov speaks, even, of an 'icy mask' (ledyanaya maska) behind which the lonely philo!(pher hid, shielding himself as far as possible from any painful contact with the world. The image of Solovyov as 'distant from the world' is especially relevant. Most commentators who employed this image sought to invest it with positive connotations. In showing Solovyoy as the rootless 'wanderer' (strannik) and homeless 'pilgrim', a man 'not of this world' (ne ot mira sego), they intended to convey that he was a mystic whose sole concern was to penetrate the secrets of the spiritual world. There is certainly a sense in which Solovyov belongs to the Russian tradition of 'God-seekers' (bogoiskateli), and to that extent the image of 'wanderer' and 'pilgrim' is both useful and telling. However, a close study of his life and writings establishes that the image of Solovyov as a mystic completely apart from the world is seriously misleading. His philosophy depended upon a recognition of the world's imperfections, hence the possibility of a comparison between him and Dostoevsky. Solovyov neither sought to shun the evils and suffering of earthly existence, nor valued the forms of spirituality that excluded recognition of these. We can gauge what Solovyov valued most by noting the qualities that he praised in other thinkers. He believed that Dostoevsky exemplified certain of the greatest strengths of Christian thought and spirituality, and his praise of this author's insights and achievements represents one important facet of Solovyov's own extensive reaffirmation of Christian values. Dostoevsky's and Solovyov's preoccupations may be considered Appendix I 187 under five prominent and inter-related headings: those of faith, the Good, prophecy, sobornost' and active love. In 1881, the year of Dostoevsky's death, and in the two subsequent years, Solovyov paid tribute to him in three speeches or lectures, published in his Collected Works under the title Three Speeches in Memory of F. M. Dostoevsky (Tri rechi v pamyat' F. M. Dostoevskogo). The second of these speeches contains a passage that brings together three of our themes- faith, the Good, and prophecy -and implicitly contains the notions of sobornost' and active love as well. The passage allows us to reflect upon Dostoevsky's Christian message, and also reveals much about the cast of Solovyov's mind, showing how he revered Dostoevsky not just in his own right, but as a 'spiritual type'. It is quite plain, in the three speeches, that Solovyov regarded Dostoevsky's spirituality as having a singularly beneficial and correct emphasis. The key passage reads as follows: Church-based and private Christianity is a reality- it is a fact. Universal Christianity is not as yet a reality: it is just a task [goal] to be achieved, and what a huge task, one that apparently goes beyond the capacities of man. As things stand at present, all the general affairs of men- politics, learning, art, social organisation - existing independent of any Christian principle, disrupt and divide people instead of uniting them, because all these affairs are conducted on the basis of egoism and personal gain, rivalry and struggle, and they breed oppression and violence. Such is reality, such is fact. But the merit and the whole significance of such people as Dostoevsky reside precisely in that they do not bow down before the force of fact and they do not serve that force. Set against this crude force of 'that which exists', they possess the spiritual force of faith in truth and goodness - in 'that which ought to exist'. Not to be led astray by the apparent domination of evil, and not to renounce the inapparent good on account of it, is a feat of faith. Man's entire strength resides in this. Whoever is incapable of this feat will achieve nothing and will have no word to address to humanity. Those people who acknowledge fact [alone] live by the grace of others, but it is not they who create life. It is the people of faith who create life. These are the people known as dreamers, utopians and holy fools - these are the prophets, truly the best people and the leaders of humanity. Today we commemorate such a person. 188 Appendix I Solovyov was not the first to eulogise Dostoevsky and to view him as a prophet or visionary, but his observations place a singular emphasis upon faith and upon Dostoevsky's extraordinary capacity for faith. Solovyov had the opportunity to develop and expound his understanding of faith and prophecy in later works, such as his The History and Future of Theocracy. It should be noted, however, that all his subsequent statements are entirely consistent with the affirmation we find in the Three Speeches in Memory of F. M. Dostoevsky, namely this: the Prophet is distinguished by the fact that, when confronted by the apparent domination of evil, he maintains faith in the ultimate victory of the Good. Solovyov certainly viewed Dostoevsky as representative of that special faith. It may be helpful, at this point, to enumerate the main areas of agreement between Dostoevsky and Solovyov. Both men developed a messianic view in which Russia featured as the rightful guardian of authentic Christian values. Those values - they believed- require application both at the collective and individual levels. Failure to preserve Christian values would, in their view, result in the loss of freedom, in men's subjugation to purely utilitarian ideologies which ridicule the very notion of human autonomy. Both Dostoevsky and Solovyov were aware of the conflicting tendencies in the human will, towards self-assertion and self-denial. While both men associated genuine self-denial with spiritual health, it was Dostoevsky who - in his fiction - exposed the various ways in which the self-assertive will can convincingly simulate self-denial and undermine virtuous motives. This capacity of the self-assertive will to simulate its very opposite is also effectively suggested by Solovyov in his portrayal of the Antichrist in A Short Story about Antichrist. The philosopher and the novelist particularly coincide in their understanding of the destructive effects of alienation, isolation and individuation (otchuzhdenie and obosoblenie). Both men also agreed on the absolute centrality and importance of moral responsibility, linking this directly to men's temptation to displace God-man (bogochelovek) and to assert the rights of man-god (chelovekobog). One further important area of comparison is the prominence of apocalyptic thought in their overall conception of the world. As regards the major differences between Dostoevsky and Solovyov, one may point to Solovyov's trust in reason and also to his greater optimism concerning the actual realization of the Kingdom of God on earth within the course and framework of human history. Appendix I 189 Various biographers and commentators such as Ernest Radlov, Sergey Solovyov the philosopher's nephew, and Lev Shestov, have drawn attention to marked differences in character and tempera ment between the two men, which admirers of Solovyov have tended to overlook. What is especially noteworthy, if one considers all the available biographical evidence, is that in the very last years Dostoevsky appears to have moved towards greater equanimity, whereas in his last years Solovyov experienced and moved towards greater tension.

Load more